americans are entrepreneurs by necessity and there are no programs to support them. we had no social caste system. upward mobility, downward mobility, anyway that people wanted to go, we were really the only country in the world that was not a top-down country. and even though initially there was this, it was separated by the atlantic ocean and americans were very autonomous and their families and local communities and the volunteer organizations, it was a bottom-up country. and that is what we found in business over the last 20 years if you want to reduce costs and push this down, you are decentralizing this power and that is where quality and savings come from. that is what america was all about in the beginning, very decentralized and very individualistic and the

constitution was put in place to guarantee that the power would not concentrate in washington. because our founders knew that when political power concentrates, so this economic power. that is when you get the corruption and greed capitalism and major corporations coming to the politicians to help them compete rather than competing in the marketplace. what has happened over the last several decades in america is that centralized concept has changed and the fact that more and more power and control and money has come here trade that is why you see the exponential growth of lobbyist here in all sectors is because this is where the money is. this is where the power is. this is where we can change things. but that is never the way it was supposed to be. so those principles that began with individuals and individual

liberty and decentralized political and economic power has been changed with policies and we detail it back from fdr all the way back up with what we have done with all good intentions, it has fundamentally changed the concept of america. but this is not doomsday for us. and that is what a recount in the book. we are at a point where we can still control our own destiny and we can pull ourselves away from the cliff. we do not have to balance the budget this year. we have to show ourselves in the world that we are committed and we are determined and we have a plan. we have a plan to move towards a balanced budget and get our fiscal situation under control. we can do that over a 10 year period of time in a rational and transitional way that did not

cause hardship except for federal government employees that may need to seek other employment. i detail what we call freedom solutions. heritage helped to develop a lot of them to give people more freedom and prosperity. what we can do to open our own energy supplies. not only creating jobs, but the revenue to the federal and state governments to deal with the debt could be extraordinary. this includes good ways to solve medicare and medicaid problems. but we could offer better and less expensive solutions to younger workers who choose a 401k style plan in the second rather than stay on the same plan that they have. not many young americans even believe that they will get something from social security and that they were actually offered real savings and i think

a lot of them would choose this. there are other ideas that don't cost the taxpayer money that are good solutions and we have a chapter on us. now or never talks about picking candidates and doing it in a way that is better than what we do now and it's not about just giving a big old speech. but it's about people who have the character and the confidence and encourage to lead the most complicated and largest organization in the world and we don't discount skills and capabilities and management. when we are picking a president of the united states, this is not about that. this is about picking someone who really does understand how to lead a great nation and turn it around. and i think that we are going to have that candidate one way or another as president. we also need the house and the

senate to elect the congressmen and senators that understand this american exceptionalism. we can call ourselves conservatives or whatever you want. but i want people to tell me face to face that they understand how america is different. and that if you understand that the goal is to decentralized the power, the solutions become pretty simple. because you don't want the government to do this. but you want the individual to have the best and most competitive health insurance plans in the world and the policies would focus on how you help the individual own and control their own health care. but if you believe in centralized power is the people controlling the senate right now due, they are automatically towards universal solutions and they are towards collectivist policies that do not work. if they worked, we could argue

about it. but the war on poverty has not cured poverty but it has created intergenerational poverty and it has encouraged folks to stay dependent and taken away their dignity and we are not helping them by depending on the government. but the point of this is that this may be our last chance to turn things around. and if i look out into the future where we are with a policy standpoint, four more years of what we are doing now and i don't know how america could survive. but the good news is that we saw in the last election that if only a small number of people get active and get involved and we think was a big turnout. less than 30% of americans over 18 years old even voted in the 2010 elections.

so what if we got 40 or 50% and they are so busy raising their families that they didn't get involved in politics? what if we gauged this and this years election. i hope we can sound the alarm and let people know that there are good solutions in what people did to make this great and the country and how they can get back there in a reasonable way that doesn't put people out in the streets as we are often accused of every time we come up with an idea. i hope that those of you that are here and are watching, i hope that you would realize that we have a chance to make this country better than it's ever been before. the things that made us great are still at work today. you don't have to go around the country very much to realize that it's still there in america

is still exceptional. we cannot go down this road much further and expect to be this great country. we can pull ourselves away from the fiscal cliff. but we have to hold of the right ideas and that is what the heritage foundation has been doing for years, insisting that the people running for office and who are in office adopt those principles that made us great. and that is decentralized power based on individual liberty and constitutional government. we have seen us with certain things that have happened in the senate and i think many are tired of the status quo and we just need a few more but hopefully we can change things to put a new person in the white house who understands what makes america great. >> you can see the entire program at our website at

booktv.org. and this includes coauthor of the body economic with budget battles and the politics of life and death. >> we can spend it within the safety net, or we can recover faster where you need to cut down now in tiger builds now in order for the future. and this was shown as a prospect. so why was i? well, the answer was written in the 1950s and only recently reiterated, which is when countries are in these sorts of things, that means that businesses are part of the understaffed including what households need to do. there's a household if you have debt and no doubt about that.

and you don't want to continue accruing interest and governments need to precisely do the opposite in order to grow the economy out of the current debt. you need to have the stimulus. but not just in banks and others, but others who have the safety net and those who spend the vast proportion of their income. and as i will show you, we will see that a lot of safety nets actually preserve the business to pay off longer-term debt. and the imf did recognize this after the staging crisis occurred. it was the first time a formal apology was issued and it took five years, one of the most dramatic apologies of the international institution

possible. coming to the current recession, we see again a vast divergence across the country and you might have heard recent reports that alcohol drinking has gone down with the recession in the united states. and that is a bit disingenuous. it's alcohol sales that has gone down. and drinking has sort of emerged across the country and most people have bought less as they have less money in their wallet. but a smaller population, particularly young men, have either had trouble finding work or were unable to maintain work and have started frequent binging. and so you see this vast emergence within the population and among them you see emergency room visits and other things. and so on average you see this decline overall drinking rates and what is really going on behind it is this then again it

shows you the danger of these aggregate statistics. similarly, we see vast differences as well and people are commenting on europe being in a universal recession and that is not true. before we were talking about this, everyone was talking about iceland and then we kind of forgot about it. it was the first country to experience a major part of the recession and it has experienced the largest recession in global economic history and it invested in u.s. mortgage-backed securities and iceland has been striking in the political and economic situations are quite different and iceland doesn't depend on other members of the heroes on for bailouts or assistance and it's not restricted. what they did was rather

dramatic. they said that, okay, we have been recommended by the imf with reduced short-term deficits and your obligations so that you can recover faster. a number of ministers, including the health minister, resigned in this includes a number of other social safety nets rather than this for a politician. and over the first time in 1944, they had a country wide vote with all these other things to put it to a vote. so even though it was more than 800% of gdp, a small group of people have invested all the money in mortgage-backed securities. and so we have two options in one is to cut the social safety net obligations and pay this

back all the foreign creditors and the other option is to do a loan repayment program and while preserving our safety nets at home and most people had understandably been a part of the second one. and this includes a public health and it was essentially a fact. some indicators were slightly improved, like sweet quality and there was no increase in suicides, we just couldn't find anything among four different groups and there is only one blip and there was a sudden spike in emergency room visits. it turns out that on week to a volcano erupted and pretty much had nothing to do at the reception. and i can't pronounce the name.

but griese went a different route and so, they underwent this idea that they must be able to help us get out of this recession by a tremendous degree and ultimately ended up having higher public health spending and it's not confusing at all if you look at the time frame. the short-term cuts resulted in so many complications that the end that they ended up having to pay more from the thought of this. they had a 40 to 50% unemployment rate and it was a derivative of this and one saw this dramatic 10-foot rise which would then result in subsequent spending and similarly, a

malaria epidemic is actually broke out as it was cut and that was 10 times more costs to control than it is to prevent and we are seeing the same things which could be a conundrum, because for the first time they had to take a malaria prophylaxis with all sorts of problems for trade agreements and now we see this trend as well. we see this and we do see this overall. but they are very heterogeneous. some we see these expenses and other we do not and it seems to be a part of a certain program

and those programs are the answer to a major question as to why it doesn't always correlate to the suicide rates and it is not causation. that is precisely the point as to why we want to investigate. unemployment rates are followed by suicide rates. and this is when they had their own banking crisis and the suicide rates are actually declining. so what are they doing? they are so robust. and it's not true. it turns out that we are investigating a slew of different programs that people were investigating. one was important at preventing suicide, alcohol related, and

other health-related problems. and in spite of being a physician come and has nothing to do with that. it is not health care spending at all but an active labor market program and they get this only on a condition and that we also enroll in this plan and this involves a person to assist them including those who are also required to participate in quickly reintegrate the force. and it turns out that preemptive spending actually results in the economic stimulus nouns are paying for itself and downstream costs and then what it fits with the swedish. maybe it's just like the european thing.

so a number of us have worked on these multiple sites and randomized control towers, including recently in the city of detroit where people are randomizing mess with standard programs, going off on your own, getting benefits, good luck to you, or this kind of program. and so all of the cities, the same results have been found, reducing the health outcomes and it is a side effect of what is ultimately a job stimulus program. and we were seeing mess with stimulus where is our country had a recession on this at the exact same time and underwent an austerity program with a clip the recovery and now they are

starting into a triple digit recession. and this ended for us around the time of the sequester when we started flattening things out in terms of the recovery. in the imf issued a paper and a major policy document. as well as a public statement from its chief economist. they were basically 400 pages of sidewalks. and it was a fascinating document if you can get through the rhetoric here. and that assumption is that for every dollar of government spending, how many dollars will we get back. and the imf and others had assumed that the number was about .5. and you can find that the reasons for this is because it's a nice round number and it seems

better. look for different groups calculate that and say during recessions, how many dollars do you get back and what you mean by this? well, when you invest in job security programs, how much do you end up stimulating an economy in terms of the job growth in business growth and overall gdp? and it's actually greater than that. you get back about a dollar 70 for what you invest. there are four different groups watching this with the same number and the irony is that we have figured out a while ago and they actually calculated this number is a multiplier for themselves and undergo the stimulus internally while recommending this as well. texas figured out a long time ago during the savings and loan crisis, california and massachusetts help desk, which no texas politician remembered

well. and so we have seen us, we have seen is manifesting out with changes that have correlated to the changes in recovery across a number of countries and this begs the question, how will this work? for example in 1997, we would have cut back on a variety of spending. this includes spending increases and want to spend on. and then in fact, it is quite

the opposite. preventing food stamps in general, welfare systems, people come off as the economy recovers and furthermore, the multipliers are particularly high. they are often not spending on other things when they are unable to get food stamps it's a he or he conundrum, for people who can either spend on their heating or they can spend it on food. so during this time when they are able to get food stamps, because others can stimulate the local economy more so. and so even if you didn't care about public health, the net result is actually a deficit reduction. and i will say that it is, however, it is important to recognize that it's difficult to find funding and medicaid and

other programs are classic programs where you have less of a tax during the recessionary time because more people are employed. so how will you find the safety nets when you need money for them the most? >> you can do the deficit spending, but is there a better way? and some of us have been working on this international initiative where the goal is to find the programs that we need an and find the novel funding and discourage the kind of things like this as well. so we all know that this led to the recession. the very few participate in these investments and i doubt that any of you went and bought a lot of mortgage-backed securities and so on. so the idea to place this small fee which is based on this old idea that on the highest risk,

the hedge funds and others that are participating in this and it seems incredibly small when we are transacting hundreds of millions of dollars on the order of $5 billion and more. and the pool of that money will naturally increase as people are undergoing this and you'll end up with this and the reason was i would argue for such a system and we may be in a unique time and it's not that unique. if you look at the times of recession ended it certainly, over the last several years or decades, it's actually somewhat

surprising when they are not in a recession if you look at the number of crashes that have taken place over the last two decades. my favorite is the tequila crisis of 1995. but it strikes me that we have price bubbles in a variety of commodities all the time and i will end by saying that essentially what i've learned is if we have adopted a physician's mantra, we might be better buffering these people in the we have quite a bit of data to understand what to invest in. i will conclude by offering this quote. it is the speech from robert kennedy in 1968. he says it's over $800 million per year if we should judge the united states of america, the

gdp counts the cigarette advertising to clear this and special locks for those who break them and the destruction of the redwoods and the natural wonders. it counts napalm and warheads and a counts the television program that the gdp does not allow for the health of our children and quality of their children and the joy of their play and it does not include the strength of our marriages where the intelligence of the public officials. neither our wisdom nor our learning or compassion or devotion. it measures everything in short, except that that makes it worthwhile and can tell us everything about why we are

proud that we are americans. >> you can watch all of the programs featured over the past hour and many other programs on a website. go to booktv.org. here is a look at some of the best telling nonfiction books. it reflects the sales as of december 1. first is david and goliath and the author questions people who rebel against authority and you can watch and discuss his book online at booktv.org and the second is the bully pulpit by kearns goodwin. she examines theodore roosevelt and william howard taft and next is charles krauthammer and his estate, things that matter. you can watch this at booktv.org. and l.a. sun is number five on

the bestsellers list followed by mark help earn with double down on the 2012 presidential election. and also the young lady who fought for education and stood up against the taliban. number eight, the book empty mansions followed by bill o'reilly and martin daugaard's take on the murder of jesus of nazareth and killing jesus. and let's explore diabetes and a collection of essays by david taveras. >> linda robinson is next. she talks about the role of u.s.

special operations forces in the world today and argues that they will be this countries primarily sole military force. this is about one hour. .. who